Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

...I'm not sure but I may have died a little inside when i saw that...
Republic gunships are awesome though, if i was any good at conversions I'd try something with that.

This looks like a SM vehicle. The Land Raider is boxy. The Thunderhawk is boxy, SM dreads are boxy...

I rather like how it sticks to the established Sm aesthetic as quite frankly I don't like GW's attempt to change up the classic look of armies as of late (Ork dread, etc.).

IF you want sleek and curvy play Tau or Eldar.

I will say two things in the models defense (though I don't like it)

1) It has a certain homage to the Aliens dropship (though square) in the layout I like.

2) Its not as huge as I feared. Valks push the edge of a playable/storeable model for me, and this seems to have a more reasonable footprint.

Still ugly though.

The_0perator wrote:Yea.... considering that was the main reason I was excited for Blood Angels, I'm Kinda not feeling it...

I hope many of the bandwagon BA players feel the same and stop playing them to be honest...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MajorTom11 wrote:Aerodynamics are heresy.

Because the Thunderhawk is an Aerodynamic marvel...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Therion wrote:

Magical weapons, daemons, or galaxy spanning empires haven't been encountered in real life. Space shuttles and aeroplanes however have.

The vast majority of 40K weaponrey and vehicles make no sense from a real world perspective.

Two Words: Toy Soldiers

I HOPE THAT TURRET FITS ON RAZORBACKS.

Because that would be amazingly dank.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...

hehehe. I am trying to do that look at my blog. But I am using it for a thunderhawk instead. As the gunship is four times the size of a land raider. XD
PS i can say this because I own one and it cost me 60$ including the collectable items inside!

Asherian Command wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I always liked the star wars republic gunship, perhaps I might use one of those instead...

hehehe. I am trying to do that look at my blog. But I am using it for a thunderhawk instead. As the gunship is four times the size of a land raider. XD
PS i can say this because I own one and it cost me 60$ including the collectable items inside!

Republic Gunship looks like a Tau vehicle...

Now that you mention it, it really does!

I think its not bad, what about this one-home made pegasus gunship for my Alpha/Omaga marines, it just needs painting

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no space marine aesthetic to this vehicle. Its aesthetic, such as it is, is distinctly ork.

Shaft - now that's a gunship! It doesn't look like a Marine vehicle, but it's a great looking model.

awsome gunship shaft

shaft wrote:I think its not bad, what about this one-home made pegasus gunship for my Alpha/Omaga marines, it just needs painting

I sense a Halo reference!

CT GAMER wrote:This looks like a SM vehicle. The Land Raider is boxy. The Thunderhawk is boxy, SM dreads are boxy...

I rather like how it sticks to the established Sm aesthetic as quite frankly I don't like GW's attempt to change up the classic look of armies as of late (Ork dread, etc.).

IF you want sleek and curvy play Tau or Eldar.

i don't think the issue is that it's sticking to a boxy marine aesthetic but that it's taking it too far. it's TOO boxy and TOO stubby. no one here was expecting a mid-90's teardrop sports car. also, it doesn't actually stick to marine aesthetics in all points as the turret is a throwback for no reason to non-marine designs. marine vehicles since the 3rd edition redesign have had remote turrets of a modern design instead of manned sponsons. this model has a WWII bomber ball turret for some unknown reason. IF i get one, the first thing i'm doing is taking off the ball turret and gluing the two lascannons together to make a more consistent marine vehicle.

Actually I love the turret. I would stick that on a land raider just for the extra lolz.

warboss wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:This looks like a SM vehicle. The Land Raider is boxy. The Thunderhawk is boxy, SM dreads are boxy...

I rather like how it sticks to the established Sm aesthetic as quite frankly I don't like GW's attempt to change up the classic look of armies as of late (Ork dread, etc.).

IF you want sleek and curvy play Tau or Eldar.

i don't think the issue is that it's sticking to a boxy marine aesthetic but that it's taking it too far. it's TOO boxy and TOO stubby. no one here was expecting a mid-90's teardrop sports car. also, it doesn't actually stick to marine aesthetics in all points as the turret is a throwback for no reason to non-marine designs. marine vehicles since the 3rd edition redesign have had remote turrets of a modern design instead of manned sponsons. this model has a WWII bomber ball turret for some unknown reason. IF i get one, the first thing i'm doing is taking off the ball turret and gluing the two lascannons together to make a more consistent marine vehicle.

Said it in the poll thread, but I'll repeat it here.

On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.

As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.

On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.

Nor can it provide covering fire while landed anyway since the things it's shooting at aren't above it.

You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.

Why would it need a ramp at all? Do the marines need help riding their wheelchairs into it? Did they all forget their knees on the barge?

As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.

'Scuse me?

You could make a rear exit on the back and basically there you go an Apache + Vulture = Awesome.

Kanluwen wrote:
On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.

As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.

And the twin las ( turret) and the meltas ( fixed forward ) are options, but I would guess the thing we miss on the pic are the optional sponsons.
So it does not state turret in the rules, thus anyone may place the weapons elsewhere.

I'd keep the turret if possible, but I am going to change the model for sure and maybe move the turret to its middle.

What is given, are the access points, 1x front, both sides and 1x rear. This model may not provide cover fire if you disembark at the rear.
Plus IMo the sponsons ( hurricane bolters ) are the cover fire and the turret is meant as AA and fire support.

shaft wrote:I think its not bad, what about this one-home made pegasus gunship for my Alpha/Omaga marines, it just needs painting

Wow that thing is so full of win!!!

ShumaGorath wrote:

On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?
Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.

Nor can it provide covering fire while landed anyway since the things it's shooting at aren't above it.

You're overestimating the height of this thing compared to armored vehicles(you know...the thing lascannons shoot at?).

You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.

Why would it need a ramp at all? Do the marines need help riding their wheelchairs into it? Did they all forget their knees on the barge?

Why wouldn't it use a ramp? Ramps let you get more troops out at once, and doesn't cramp up the interior unnecessarily.

Kanluwen wrote:Said it in the poll thread, but I'll repeat it here.

On top of the fuselage is the only real place the twin lascannons would work. Why?

Because you can't have it placed underneath and still be able to provide covering fire while landed to drop off troops due to the ramp placement.
You can't move the ramp to the rear either, because then troops would have to wait for the Dreadnought to disconnect and clear its attachment point.

feel free to repeat it as many times as you want as i can't stop you but that doesn't change the fact that i'm not disagreeing with that in the first place. you need to stop reflexively defending everything gw does and actually read posts. my problem is with the design of the turret (among other things with this model) and not the placement.

Kanluwen wrote:
As for why it's a ball turret versus a remote design...
That's easy. Remotely operated turrets on air vehicles wouldn't work out too well.

boeing said to tell you hi and to that the b-29 superfortress disagrees with your statement. it did quite well during the war with all those remote turrets, you know, being pivotal to winning the pacific theatre of WWII and all, thank you very much.

http://www.lonesentry.com/blog/b-29-remote-control-turret-system.html/comment-page-1

Just preemptively: Everyone take a deep breath. It's just the internet.

Wait are we acting out of term I thought this was a legitmate conversion! Because they aren't ripping each other. The two of them are just saying the model is either good or bad. I don't see it as insulting.

I agree that the obvious flaws are the wings being too small, front being too heavy, tail being too short and the top turret not matching the SM style of automated heavy weaponry. The Storm Raven isn't a great success for GW. Will be fun to see what weapon options the Grey Knights get for it and what the sprues look like. GW can screw this thing up even further by not including all the weapon options in the kit. Happens all the time.

You're overestimating the height of this thing compared to armored vehicles(you know...the thing lascannons shoot at?).

That turret is placed higher up then almost every vehicle in the game, it's probably taller then a land raider judging by the marines there. It also doesn't look like it can turn sideways with how it's modeled there, nor can it shoot behind itself, thus making it useless against most other aircraft.

Why wouldn't it use a ramp? Ramps let you get more troops out at once, and doesn't cramp up the interior unnecessarily.

How does waiting for the ramp to drop let out more troops at once? Why can't they just use their mighty power armor and godlike legs to drop the four feet like with almost every other vtol troop carrying craft ever designed or imagined?

Therion wrote:I agree that the obvious flaws are the wings being too small, front being too heavy, tail being too short and the top turret not matching the SM style of automated heavy weaponry. The Storm Raven isn't a great success for GW. Will be fun to see what weapon options the Grey Knights get for it and what the sprues look like. GW can screw this thing up even further by not including all the weapon options in the kit. Happens all the time.

i have been wondering about that. the weapons the only pic we have show are specifically the anti-armor choices (las, melta, missles). i'd be shocked if it didn't come with the heavy bolter/assault cannon standard loadout... but i'm hoping that it comes with the optional hurricane bolter sponsons also.

warboss wrote:

Therion wrote:I agree that the obvious flaws are the wings being too small, front being too heavy, tail being too short and the top turret not matching the SM style of automated heavy weaponry. The Storm Raven isn't a great success for GW. Will be fun to see what weapon options the Grey Knights get for it and what the sprues look like. GW can screw this thing up even further by not including all the weapon options in the kit. Happens all the time.

i have been wondering about that. the weapons the only pic we have show are specifically the anti-armor choices (las, melta, missles). i'd be shocked if it didn't come with the heavy bolter/assault cannon standard loadout... but i'm hoping that it comes with the optional hurricane bolter sponsons also.

Don't forget the Typhoon Missile Launcher, TL Plasma Cannons, and like I said previously any GK specific weapon options I'm already setting myself up for disappointment.

Absolutionis wrote:There's no explanation as to why the thing that looks like a brick should fly. We're not given any explanation.
...In the end, I'll just attack and blow off the weapons of an airborne Stormraven with a few really angry Termagants and not consider realism nor believability for a moment.

You answered your own question. The explanation for why they look the way they do is so that they'll fit on the tabletop so that your 'nids or whatever can attack them. Long sleek aircraft would simply cover too much of the table surface which is ultimately about squad level tactics in an already compressed environment.
I'd imagine that a "real" thunderbolt would be a boxy affair compared to modern aircraft but nowhere near as boxy as the model.

cadbren wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:There's no explanation as to why the thing that looks like a brick should fly. We're not given any explanation.
...In the end, I'll just attack and blow off the weapons of an airborne Stormraven with a few really angry Termagants and not consider realism nor believability for a moment.

You answered your own question. The explanation for why they look the way they do is so that they'll fit on the tabletop so that your 'nids or whatever can attack them. Long sleek aircraft would simply cover too much of the table surface which is ultimately about squad level tactics in an already compressed environment.
I'd imagine that a "real" thunderbolt would be a boxy affair compared to modern aircraft but nowhere near as boxy as the model.

Which brings to mind the question of why this small scale tabletop wargame has aircraft.